Originally posted by normbenignPlease explain the relevance to 30 round magazines, or those of any size. How long is the film?

According to accounts, the Brits decided, based on their almost useless bomb-targeting capability, to go to area bombing at night (no need to even see a target other than city lights if you are carpet bombing) and justified it based on German attacks, basically buying the false rationale that civilian morale and loyalty could be destroyed by bombing them; and buying the perhaps valid rationale that not to do so would damage morale at home.

The American technology allowed more precise bombing so they continued to follow FDR's dictum about not targeting civilians, at least they held out longer -- but it was by agreement with the Brits -- you go by night, we go by day. Of course civilians eventually will be targeted in any war, and were by all concerned or would have been if they could be.

The point is that the weapon, read broadly to include the technology for using it, will determine how it is used to achieve the aims (even if the plan fails).

The military version rapid fire, large capacity magazine, fully automatic precursor of the semi was developed to allow spray fire after the experts realized that soldiers hardly aimed their rifles in actual combat. A smaller bullet was developed for reasons of weapon weight. The semi is actually better suited to massacres of unarmed civilians than the fully automatic, (although the fully can be set at semi).

So in this sense,, the weapon’s capability defines how it will be employed. If there is no other limit on the use to which a weapon can be put, some percentage of the population who has access to it, will use it to the limit of its capability.

I think this is just an objective fact that should be accepted by all concerned. In the current situation, massacres of unarmed civilians will be part of life.

The video is an hour at least (I don't remember) but it is a good video for the history buff; it is not trying to sell an anti-gun agenda in the least.

Originally posted by JS357According to accounts, the Brits decided, based on their almost useless bomb-targeting capability, to go to area bombing at night (no need to even see a target other than city lights if you are carpet bombing) and justified it based on German attacks, basically buying the false rationale that civilian morale and loyalty could be destroyed by bombing them; and ...[text shortened]... s a good video for the history buff; it is not trying to sell an anti-gun agenda in the least.

I just read an article, can't place where which articulated the beginning of the nomenclature "assault rifle". The earliest of the genre, where the sub machine gun, used primarily as a trench clearing weapon in WWI. German grease gun, and American Tommy gun fit this.

Later AK47, and Stoner rifle appeared, which fired full auto, with smaller, lighter bullets than traditional battle rifles, which typically were longer ranged and fired heavier bullets. The Soviet block eventually followed the lead of the Americans with the AK 74, while maintaining the design of the AK47, it used a lighter, faster bullet.

The term assault rifle indicates use in the assault of a fortified position, which would require superior numbers, and the ability to lay down suppression fire to facilitate the advance.

The biggest difference between the true assault rifles, and the semi auto pretenders is that the barrels of the pretenders can't take the heat of extended rapid fire. Accuracy is rapidly degraded by an over heated barrel, and if firing is continued the next thing is catastrophic failure, that is a bullet gets stuck in the barrel, and the next shot blows the gun sky high, with often fatal results to the operator.

You conclude, "So in this sense,, the weapon’s capability defines how it will be employed. If there is no other limit on the use to which a weapon can be put, some percentage of the population who has access to it, will use it to the limit of its capability."

"In the current situation, massacres of unarmed civilians will be part of life."

Yet, the AK and AR15 platforms have been around for about 50 years, and the number of massacres are quite few, compared to the other violent use of guns, such as shotguns, hand guns, and small caliber weapons by professional hit men.

For some 25 years, I put on a holster with a .45 ACP pistol every day. It had a capacity of 15 rounds, and was never used to kill multiple people. It was never fired in anger or defense. It did on a number of occasions stop potential violence, and saved me from likely harm.

In recorded history, two nuclear devices have been detonated. In the years since, the horror of those detonations led to the MAD notion which seems to have prevented further detonations, and perhaps even prevented conventional wars.

Originally posted by Duchess64Given that Normbenign likes to boast of his self-evident 'superior' reading
comprehension, why has he been apparently asking for any assistance?

I have asked you for clarification on a number of occasions only to be rebuffed. Unlike you, I recognize I have limitations, admit when I have been in error, and concede that a lot of things are matters of opinion.

It is entirely possible and likely that intelligent people of good will believe differently, reach different conclusions based on similar sets of data, and that neither are stupid or evil.

Originally posted by normbenignI just read an article, can't place where which articulated the beginning of the nomenclature "assault rifle". The earliest of the genre, where the sub machine gun, used primarily as a trench clearing weapon in WWI. German grease gun, and American Tommy gun fit this.

Later AK47, and Stoner rifle appeared, which fired full auto, with smaller, lighter ems to have prevented further detonations, and perhaps even prevented conventional wars.

The frequency of such massacres will continue to be low, as a percentage of killings. I don't think we have a disagreement here. The frequency will be as high as we allow it to be.

WRT MAD, it is part of an overall foreign policy. Arms control treaties and incentives to refrain from developing nuclear weapons capability are other parts.

Something like MAD; namely, rapid response cops with overwhelming firepower and the justice system, exist now for armed solitary mass killers. In some settings, there is screening for weapons, and armed guards are present.

So the killer stands to be destroyed. But some of them seem to be quite ready for that.

Originally posted by JS357The frequency of such massacres will continue to be low, as a percentage of killings. I don't think we have a disagreement here. The frequency will be as high as we allow it to be.

WRT MAD, it is part of an overall foreign policy. Arms control treaties and incentives to refrain from developing nuclear weapons capability are other parts.

Something like MA ...[text shortened]... e destroyed. But some of them seem to be quite ready for that.

It's a good analogy, anyway.

The other problem with both nuclear weapons and conventional firearms is that they are a genie which probably can't be put back into the bottle.

Originally posted by normbenign to JS357The other problem with both nuclear weapons and conventional firearms is that they are a genie which probably can't be put back into the bottle.

Some countries have voluntarily renounced their nuclear weapons.

Under apartheid, South Africa developed (presumably with Israeli aid) a
nuclear weapons capability. Before acceding to black majority rule, the
white minority government decided to dismantle its nuclear weapons.

After the disintegration of the USSR, some former Soviet republics outside
Russia (principally Ukraine) had Soviet nuclear weapons on their territories.
Reportedly, these new independent countries agreed to send their nuclear
weapons to Russia.

Originally posted by normbenignThe other problem with both nuclear weapons and conventional firearms is that they are a genie which probably can't be put back into the bottle.

Yes, Pandora's box has been opened. Now that we have weapons, from the first stone or club, it has taken the use of weapons to prevent the use of weapons. And then whoever is dominant in weaponry, prevents the use of weapons by the dominated. Enforcement.

So I would like to see the gun lobby and the anti-gun lobby explain believably who their regime, if they attain it to the fullest degree, will benefit, and how they will do that (how it will be enforced).